Thanks Jill...Unfortunately I don't have javascript enabled in my browser."

Then use the [ quote][ /quote] without the spaces.  The site will translate it for you.  Or you can use [ B][ /B] again with out the spaces for bold, or even I for Italics.

And for the record, I agree that it was not the courts, but the legislature that dropped the ball.  I am one of the first that rails against activist courts, but in this case, they were just following the law.  And that is the sad part that the people of Washington allowed it to be written in the first place.

If parents can't monitor their children's conversations or activities on the phone or computer, then why can colleges (such as the one I am at right now) monitor the use of their computers?

probably because the computer is not in one of the 11 states that require "all party" consent.

That may be true, but the fact remains that the judges completely ignored the fact that it is the parents, not the kid that owns the telephone. The judges assume that just because I (as a parent) allow my kids to use the phone, I give them full rights of ownership. What the judges should have done was refuse to even bother with the arguement, since allowing it in court put them in this position and allowed idiocy to replace justice.

]

No, actually, what the judges did was follow the law as it was written. As I said earlier, the legislature had debated whether or not to include a provision excluding minors from the privacy act and choose not to--the legislative intent was clear and the judges upheld it. You simply can't pick and choose which laws you'd like to follow and which ones you'd like to ignore. Don't like the law, lobby the legislature to change it...but don't suggest that a judge has the right to act above the law--that would be truly frightening.

No, actually, what the judges did was follow the law as it was written. As I said earlier, the legislature had debated whether or not to include a provision excluding minors from the privacy act and choose not to--the legislative intent was clear and the judges upheld it. You simply can't pick and choose which laws you'd like to follow and which ones you'd like to ignore. Don't like the law, lobby the legislature to change it...but don't suggest that a judge has the right to act above the law--that would be truly frightening.

Damn!  twice in one day!  One of us is getting liberal or conservative!  But you nailed it again!  I agree 100%.  You dont like the law change it, dont subvert it in the courts!

For the record, just so I know I am still conservative, I think they should change the law, through the legislature!

Spooky!

You simply can't pick and choose which laws you'd like to follow and which ones you'd like to ignore

Judges make that choice every day, they choose what evidence, what arguments and what "facts" can be presented by either side of the case.

That is their job. We pay them to think, if they can't do that, then maybe they should consider "The Academy of Persons Waiting For Your Call" as their next educational option.

Judges, school administrators, teachers, and others are using these "zero tolerance" style policies as an excuse to not think.

I will agree with you on the point of the legislature though, they showed a great inability to think when they passed such an idiotic law too. Their complete lack of judgement just gives lazy judges more excuses.

Once again, laziness begets more laziness.

Of course, there is our own laziness that let's such stupidity stand also.

Sorry but the coursts are right, they invaded his privacy. Dispite what he did, it does not give you the right to spy on him.

About columbine, you ever wonder why those kids did that to those other kids? Maybe if they didn't tease them it wouldn't have happened, its really quite simple to see and understand this, the way you people are going you will keep wading into ignorance and keep thinking its all their fault. Placing blame does not achieve anything, finding the cause or the initiation of such events is the way to understanding said happennings.

Lets take a quick look at columbine, a bunch of kids were probably being bullied a lot, this is wrong the people who are bullied are being oppressed and having their rights invaded, yet to have school rules, law and parents tell them they can't defend themselves. What ridiculous contradictory rules. I think the real reason they did this is to, say it is not right to infringe on other peoples rights, but through action rather than words. When its words most people refuse to listen, and when its action as I can see from the above posts some still refuse to listen or understand, and harp on about how the kids that were killed were innocent. How were they innocent if they bullied the kids that killed them, of course some of them may have been, but no one really knows, because there is no evidence. Right now some of you are probably thinking that I think murder is fine. Your dead wrong, but your also dead wrong in thinking that the bullies didn't deserve something of their own aggravation reflected back upon them.

As to people who say two wrongs don't make a right, I say one wrong doesn't make a right.

The above quote "two wrongs don't make a right" is contradictory in the fact that one wrong doesn't make a right.

Now I hope you actually learnt something, because i've written it all in black and white.

If you still don't understand then, clearly you are worthless and shouldn't make future comments on said happenings, until you gain a greater understanding of logic and how to apply it.

Feelings not matter in said situation only objectivity.

Bullying and Murder are both infringements of peoples rights.

Example:

A kid is being teased, the kid has done nothing to deserve this, lets say the kid gets teased for 1 year harshly by this other kid. How do you think that kid would feel? He would likely want to kill the other person especially if no one does anything about it. Remember he can't do anything except tell him to stop, he can't defend himself because of school rules, law, parents etc.

What gives the kid who is bullying the right? Nothing gives him the right.

Now picture this your a kid and lots of people bully you, and you've never done anything to hurt them intentionally. 5 years passes now you want to kill them because you can't accept the infringement of rights anymore.

Who's guilty here? The bulliers of course because they initiated the infringement of rights, and now the receiver wants to reflect it back on to them. Its not about revenge, its about rights being infringed upon.

Sorry but the coursts are right, they invaded his privacy. Dispite what he did, it does not give you the right to spy on him.

It is not "spying", the phone didn't belong to the kid, it belonged to the parents. If a kid gives his or her parents reason to suspect illegal activity, it is the parent's responsibility to find out what is going on.

About columbine, you ever wonder why those kids did that to those other kids? Maybe if they didn't tease them it wouldn't have happened, its really quite simple to see and understand this, the way you people are going you will keep wading into ignorance and keep thinking its all their fault. Placing blame does not achieve anything, finding the cause or the initiation of such events is the way to understanding said happennings.

Are you really saying that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold should not be held responsible for their actions??? I am all for investigating any extenuating circumstances, and even taking lessons from the whole situation, hopefully to understand the "why" of what they did.

However, none of the "why" justified what they did. Making excuses for them is as ignorant as simply placing blame and ignoring anything that could be learned from the tragedy. They were murderers, plain and simple. The question isn't whether or not they were monsters, the question should be, what can we learn from the tragedy to see the warning signs that will help us keep other kids from becoming monsters.

Hoever, instead of learning lessons from it, all our culture seems to have done is used it as an excuse for more stupidity. As a knee jerk reaction to Columbine and the other shootings, school administrators everywhere have turned to "zero tolerance" idiocy. All "zero tolerance" means is, "We refuse to actually think through this situation so we are going to make blanket policies that make us feel better (actually doing something might make me feel bad).

Your dead wrong, but your also dead wrong in thinking that the bullies didn't deserve something of their own aggravation reflected back upon them.

If their only targets were those who had been bullying them, you might have a point. However, from the few recordings that have been released we never hear them being that specific about their targets. There is also the question about the pipebombs and 30 some odd propane tank bombs found throughout the school.

True, none of us will ever know everything about what happened at Columbine, but nothing about the evidence would point to the idea that they planned a surgical strike at specific targets. If they had have set off that propane, there would have been very few survivors.

Then use the [ quote][ /quote] without the spaces. The site will translate it for you.[ /quote]

If this worked TNX Dr.

Independent1 - don't use any spaces and the tags'll work properly. Dr Guy just had to use them so they would show up at all.

Sorry but the coursts are right, they invaded his privacy. Dispite what he did, it does not give you the right to spy on him

Since this is the only part of your comment that wasn't total trolling, I will address it.  Sorry but you are wrong my friend.  If you invade the privacy of my family life by talking to my underage child on my phone, I have the right to hear what you are saying.  That is the risk you take if you call my phone number.  I think most adults understand this.  Sure, the law makes it legal for the court to through it out.  That doesn't convince me that it is right.

Now to address your trolling rampage about Columbine, if you think that being bullied is an excuse to go blow people away, you need a whole lot of counseling.  I stand by my statement that parents need to be on top of what is going on with their children and don't need any more restrictions.  I firmly believe that the parents of those kids must have been totally tuned out or else they couldn't have done what they did.

 

Trolling rampage, you just an arrogant adult, property does not give you the right to spy on other people, I don't care what the law says about that, its an infringement of human rights.

if you think that being bullied is an excuse to go blow people away

I never said that read the reply again moron.

Parents should stop lying to their kids and start telling them the truth.

I tell me kids the truth, I tell them that if they give me reason to suspect, then I will exercise my right as a parent to read their Email, listen in on their converstations, and even go to class with them to make sure they are going.

Anyone who tells my kids that I have no right to pry into their privacy (especially if my kids' actions give me cause to worry) is a liar and a complete waste of human flesh.

Is that plain truth enough for you? ;~D

About the only targets being the bullies, trust me you wouldn't be able to remember them all. Not when you have more than 20 people doing it, even bystanders that saw them being bullied are not innocent as they, could have done something to help but no they don't want to do that, to selfish and afraid.

The only innocent people are the ones who didn't know anything about it, and I don't care what the media has said about who was targeted there was no evidence to corroborate this information it is all circumstantial.

Part of the problem with kids these days is parents don't bother teaching them anything useful.

mental note. Radonix has decided that murder is an appropriate response to being bullied.

I'll agree with you that parents don't bother teaching their kids.

Parated2k your a lier, I never stated that is appropriate response I have said both acts are wrong.

Even so, those who initiate aggravation upon others, will usually ahve it reflected back to them, don't you understand its a fucking defense mechanism.

A lot of you are playing down the bullying, this is wrong, a 5 year period of bullying, is a lot more than a murder in terms of time. When murder is commited by shooting someone in a fatal area, the death is quick and painless. 5 Years of pain or 60 seconds or more of pain. The relatives feelings towards the dead are irrelevant, to the actual situation. Any actions by them related to the situation could be relevant in some manner.

There is no after-life in death, thats is hogwash, i've also experienced near-death myself so I'm not lying, and I don't believe in lying there simply isn't much of a point to lying.

Even so, those who initiate aggravation upon others, will usually ahve it reflected back to them, don't you understand its a fucking defense mechanism.

You say you never stated it was appropriate, but then you vomit this crap on me. If you are going to call me a liar, don't contradict yourself (and reinforce my point) with the very next sentence!! ;~D

Apparently your parents neglected to teach you that mass murder (as a response to someone pissing you off) is a little on the extreme side. Of course, I better not push you too far, apparently you are already on the edge.

A myth to dispell.

Not everything is relevant to one another.

And to the fool saying they own the phone, I say this do you own the landline that goes under your house and connects to the exchange in your local county? No you don't you. You may pay for the rental of said line, but the telco's have terms and conditions for using those lines as well.

Right saying it is a defense mechanism is not the same as saying it is appropriate to murder someone.

Go back to school you fool ParaTed2k. oh yeah another thing RTFM English Dictionary.

"defense mechanism: noun: (psychiatry) an unconscious process that tries to reduce the anxiety associated with instinctive desires."

So, what you are trying to bore me with is the defense that mass murder should be considered "an unconscious process that tries to reduce the anxiety associated with instinctive desires." Got me there, I guess in your little world an appropriate way to reduce your anxiety is to just shoot somebody, or maybe (if your really anxious) offing a whole school just might do the trick.

Have a day! ;~D

http://www.rhymezone.com/r/rhyme.cgi?Word=defense+mechanism&typeofrhyme=def&org1=syl&org2=l

then again you try and be complex and go into details that were not even mentioned and i had no intention of implying.

Just give up parated2k your wrong.

This has nothing to do with psychiatry.

ParaTed2k if actually read the words as they are instead of trying to read between the lines you'd figure out what the fuck I'm saying.

It is not "spying", the phone didn't belong to the kid, it belonged to the parents. If a kid gives his or her parents reason to suspect illegal activity, it is the parent's responsibility to find out what is going on.It is not "spying", the phone didn't belong to the kid, it belonged to the parents. If a kid gives his or her parents reason to suspect illegal activity, it is the parent's responsibility to find out what is going on.

It is invasion of privacy as per state law in Washington State. Read the court opinion or the law. The ownership of the phone has nothing to do with it. I would agree that parents should do something if they suspect their children are involved with or know about certain activities, but that does not give them the right to use illegal means. In most states parents do have the right to eavesdrop so its a non issue. In the rest it is somewhat questionable. Personally I'm glad I live in one the questionable states. Not because I don't think I should have the ability to eavesdrop on my children, but because there is an all party clause so I know my privacy is protected much better than those in states with single consent laws. The one thing I know is that trust is the most important factor in every relationship I''ve had. So I'm smart enough to know that eavesdropping is one of those last resort things if all else fails.

For the record, just so I know I am still conservative, I think they should change the law, through the legislature!

I don't know Dr. I suspect the Washington Supreme Court is Liberal so you might just be a liberal now

You simply can't pick and choose which laws you'd like to follow and which ones you'd like to ignore Judges make that choice every day, they choose what evidence, what arguments and what "facts" can be presented by either side of the case.

But they are supposed to choose what evidence etc. should be admitted based on the law. That's why this case went to the Wash Supreme Court.....Because the initial judge allowed evidence to be presented that was illegally gathered and hence should not have been allowed.

If a parent eavesdrops on their kids, so be it. The state generally doesn't concern themselves with this even if it is not explicitly legal. It is the disclosure of such information in court cases or to the media that concerns them. The state is not prosecuting the mother. The case is about the illegal admission of the evidence stemming from the mother violating the privacy of the boy , not her daughter.

Trolling rampage, you just an arrogant adult, property does not give you the right to spy on other people, I don't care what the law says about that, its an infringement of human rights.

Wrong.  You have no rights since you are a minor.  So there is no infringement unless the state grants it to you, and they did in this case, but only in this case.

And your lame justification for Columbine?  Excuse me millions of kids are bullied every year, and 99.9999% of them never resort to murder, so your causality lacks any justification in any type of scientific study.

Finally, dont call people older and wiser than you morons.  They have forgotton more than you know,and know more than you can even comprehend at your age.

I never said that read the reply again moron.

This will be your one and only warning- do *not* personally attack people or you will be banned from this site.

Trolling rampage, you just an arrogant adult, property does not give you the right to spy on other people, I don't care what the law says about that, its an infringement of human rights.

Obviously you are not understanding a simple fact- minors do not have the same rights as adults.  The way I view it, if you say something to my under aged child, you are talking to me directly since my underaged child is *my* responsibility.  So, listening to a phone conversation at the same time that your child is should be considered your parental right in keeping your child safe.

Here is my view on phone "privacy": the only people who complain about this are people who are doing something that is wrong.  If you are living a clean life and not committing crimes, what would you be saying that would matter?